View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Three Amigos |  Agile Planning Poker |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Example Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | When estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | When a story carries business rules and exceptions, it brings clarity before implementation. It makes examples, open questions, and boundaries visible enough that the logic becomes jointly sound. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 2-5 min je Item | 60-90 min pro Feature | 30-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3 | 3-9 | 3-6 | 3-7 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Example Map, Acceptance Criteria, Open Questions |
Tagsno overlap | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | Behavior-Driven DevelopmentRequirementsExamplesRefinement |